₦airaland Forum

ileobatojo: 99 cent, you are so on point and I love you!

Coogar OMG! Really? 76+16+14? Really? ? ? ? ?

abeg I no fit laugh
all d while i'm laughing my azz off and wondering why i'm even bothering to correct him.

coogar: Elki Parmar of Wedding Days.co.uk, who conducted the survey, said: ‘Some of the brides we have spoken to are doing things that they feel make their wedding more 'feminist'.

'That could be reflected by deciding not be given away, the idea being that one of the connotations of this tradition is that the woman is property to be given away.

so the women didn't make the statement afterall. i'm not blind and i'm reading the same article as you!
the article simply stated it as "one of the connotations" meaning that it wasn't the women's words. unless u don't know what connotation means.
besides another connotation is that women who didn't let their dads give them away most likely have bad relationship with their dads. this is based on the last statement that women who DID let their dad give them away, did it based on love for their dads.

the funniest thing is that coogar, u are carrying other men's "problems" on your head. if and when u get married, no one is forcing u to marry a woman who prefer not to have her dad walk her. or who don't want to wear white (i'm assuming that u will be marrying a virgin? LOL hahaha ) or who wants her own name or hyphenated name.
the men who are marrying these women chose to do so it shouldn't be a problem for you, should it?

coogar: the women who don't want their dads giving them away clearly stated it made them feel like a property.

post the quote to this "statement". otherwise, u remain a lying basterd.
stop making stuff up out of your AZZ

coogar: if 24% want apples and 10% want red, it means the 10% want red apples and the other 14% would have any colour of apples.

hahahahahhahaha
no comment


if out of 100%
24% people wanted an apple
and 10% wanted a red car. how do we know that all the 10% who wanted a red car also wanted an apple?

this information SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how many wanted both. infact, it could be 0, it could be all. we don't know. we would need more information to decide this. Are you sure you finished primary school?

hahaha dummy. no where in d article does it state that all the 10% who didn't wear white also didn't let their dad walk the aisle with them. that's just something u made up out of your yansh.

I don't blame u though. u couldn't think of any other reason why a woman would not wear white (divorced, non-conformist etc) or refuse to walk with their dad (abusive, dead, absent etc). just as you couldn't think of any reason why a woman would prefer her own name (profession, ease of pronunciation etc). Feminism is not a one size fit all. it's all about women having the ability to make their own choices for whatever reason. women aren't children.


I will leave u with a picture of a woman in alternative wedding dress who is being walked by her father. I hope u don't have a heart attack from seeing it. hahahaha
https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md6qe64zLt1ri31gpo1_500.jpg

coogar: 10% - no white wedding, no dad walking the aisle
14% - white wedding, no dad walking the aisle

can you show me the quote in the article that u found this breakdown of the 24% who didn't want their dads?
again, stop making stuff out of your azz

u r looking dumber and dumber by the minute.

coogar: of the 24%, 10% want to take it further by wearing anything other than white
this is simple logic that even the dumbest of student in primary 4 would have grasped.

out of 100%
24% do not want to walk with their fathers
10% do not want white dress

therefore, according to you, the 10% must have come out of the 24%.
hahaha I agree. only the dumbest student in primary 4 could have come up with this kind of dumb illlogic!!


out of 100%
10% wanted red
24% wanted apples

therefore the 10% who wanted red ALSO must have wanted apples based on coogar-math. hahahah dumb dumb dumb.

besides how is "not wearing white" more feminist/extreme than "not letting your dad walk you down the aisle"?
ROTLMAO stupidity at its best. this is what u call logic?

just be a good father.
no woman in her right mind will let an abusive or absent father walk her down the aisle whether or not she is a feminist.

coogar: of the 24%, 10% want to take it further by wearing anything other than white

I re-read the article and didn't see anywhere where it suggests this (that ALL women who didn't want to wear white also didn't want their fathers to walk them down the aisle). can u plz show us data?
quit making stuff up/ adding ur own jara to the article.

Let me give u a simple advice, if you ever become a father (to a male or female) be a good father. The chances of your daughter inviting you to their wedding or letting u walk down the aisle with her is more correlated to whether or not you were a good father than to whether or not she is a feminist.

I will leave you with the QUOTE in the article to digest.

'For example the bride will often want her father to ‘give’ her away, not because of anti-feminist reasons but because she loves her father and wants to display that love on her wedding day.

goodluck

I glanced at ur post (didn't read it) and didn't see any quotations from the article so I do not feel obliged to read it.
don't make claims about an article that can't back up with quotes from that same article. it makes you a liar.

the article did not divide 200 (which is already pretty small) females into feeminist vs antifeminist. It only implied that since many of them were open to non-traditional weddings that meant that "feminist wedding" (whatever that means) was on the rise. This is an article in a tabloid magazine mind u...so the fact that u needed to make up ur own lies to add jara to it makes u look pathetic.

if 76% have loving healthy relationship with their dads. then the logical implication is that a good number of the remaining 24% do NOT have a loving healthy relationship with their dads. This is not exclusive to women only. I'm sure there are also many men who do not have healthy relationships with their dads. heck I know of people who do not invite their dads at all to their weddings! male and female.

coogar: if you keep your last name(which belongs to your dad by the way), is that not patriarchal - what you feminists actually fight against?

I already explained my rationale for keeping my last name. I want a nice last name. simple as that. I shouldn't be forced to keep my husband's name if i find it ugly or too long. Many other women keep their last name for professional reasons. if they already have professional success prior to marriage ie published books with their maiden name. what's the rationale behind changing it again? ex. Chimamanda Adichie (she is a outspoken feminist by the way)
so there u see that feminists have different reasons for wanting to keep their last names.

besides, if I keep my last name and my son or daughter takes my name and their kids take my name and on and on...the "patriarchal" argument no longer exist. The woman who keeps her name just happens to be the first to break the cycle that's all.

coogar: they interviewed 200 women - the feminists amongst them did not like the idea of their dads walking the aisle with them, they did not like the idea of the engagement ring and they would keep their maiden names(their father's name)

What a liar.

You must be reading a different article than the one posted by the OP then.Because in the article here that I read,they interviewed 200 women and many of them had different ideas that vereed away from the traditional idea of marriage.

25% wanted to keep their maiden name
10% wanted to wear a different color than white
76% wanted their father to walk them down the aisle

and this is the commentary on the last point:

For example the bride will often want her father to ‘give’ her away, not because of anti-feminist reasons but because she loves her father and wants to display that love on her wedding day.


If u saw something different, let me know and use direct quotes from the article to back ur claims.

coogar: you are not a feminist because of a small wedding....you are a feminist if you want to keep your maiden name, you are a feminist if you don't want your dad to walk the aisle with you or some other deluded made-up stuff that mocks the marriage tradition.

WRONG. I am a feminist and want my dad to walk the aisle with me.

Read the article and it clearly states that an overwhelming majority of those feminist women who don't want traditional wedding still want their dad to walk the aisle with them.

If my husband's last name is short enough, i'll hyphenate. If his name is very nice and I like it better than my own, i'll keep his name. if he has an ugly last name, i'll keep mine.

I don't want a big dramatic wedding either. Something small and personal is what I prefer. Guess I am a feminist!

dunno what the whole point is with a big white gown and over the top wedding because apparently wedding day is supposed to be the best day in a woman's life. I find that idea to be very sad.

^
dog, I think it's cool. I don't want a big, dramatic wedding either. Didn't realize it was a "feminist" way to think. I guess great minds think alike


dunno what the whole point is with a big white gown and over the top wedding because apparently wedding day is supposed to be the best day in a woman's life. I find that idea to be very sad because it pressures women to feel that they have to make their wedding over the top.

jakaiso: My point basically is that the credit system allows the vast majority of the population of any country to live well above poverty and acquire what those in teh 3rd world consider luxuries. Having a car, having a good home in a well developed neighbourhood are not luxuries in the developed world.
The sub prime disaster started after the dot com crash when the feds lowered interest rates-the banks got easy money and started lending anybody-job or no job, good or bad credit credit-that was 1999/2000- 8 years later it al collapsed. But before 1999 and now after the recession that has started easing off-people are still getting credit to buy houses and cars-the key is to do it within your means.
If you $30,000 a year ( and your wife $24,000 to $30,000 or more) and have been able to save $10,000 there is nothing wrong in placing that $10,000 as down payment for house that you buy for $130,000-with your income -you can pay that off in 5 to 10 years -although the banks will offer you 30 years!

ok. point taken.
i thought u were saying that the houses were too expensive compared to US (without considering the location ie lagos island vs rural village in nigeria).
so what u mean is that even though they are expensive, poor people should be able to buy them with credit and pay over their lifetime. lol u might have a point.

jakaiso: Bros I beg to differ-see the pictures of where I am staying in Florida-i have a place in Florida and MN. This kind of building/estate would be reserved for billionaires or people with hundreds of millions in Nigeria. But here in the USA -anyone with a job-and good credit ( and good credit can easily be gotten within 3 years as long as you have a steady job-get at least 3 credit cards plus some other form of credit like a car payment or mortagage and pay on time).
By American standards I am just lower middle class -in Nigeria I would be considered a multi millionaire as this house is worth at least N100 million!( though by God's Grace I am on the way to middle middle class-and then up -till I join the likes of Dangote and Mark Cuban)

1. how many nigerians do u know buy houses and cars on credit.
2. ever heard of sub-prime morgage credit and credit crisis that is the main reason behind the recession going on in the USA right now? many low income families buying big homes and cars they can't afford on credit and can't pay back.
3. even a nurse in USA will be considered a millionaire in nigeria (and a nurse is middle class in USA. which means that u r poorer than that). dollar has more value than naira. duh.

I am not against your point that these houses are expensive. but comparing to USA is not accurate because USA has expensive locations too like areas in manhattan, NY etc. It's all about supply and demand. Lagos island happens to be probably the most expensive location in the whole of Nigeria. those houses are not empty. trust me. if they are, the price will fall.

https://media.jsonline.com/images/103068384_vital%20stats%20diversity.jpg

feminism is working. but there is still more to be done. we are not there yet!

https://media.jsonline.com/images/103068384_census%20voting%20trends%20by%20race.jpg

Obama (a black candidate) shows up on the ballot and lo and behold, more black people rushed to the polls!! First time in history that blacks beat whites to the polls on a presidential election.

granted, majority of those blacks were women although we were torn between hillary and obama most of us chose obama. Hillary for 2016 though
https://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/2728/small/2008voter-turnout-by-gender-and-race.jpg?1344029836

Spot the difference: 1913 anti-feminists vs 2013 anti-feminists

list of arguments that anti-feminists used to justify why women shouldn't have a right to vote in 1913.

- women were not interested in politics and are unfit for political life...women were absorbed with trivial, domestic matters (hmm this sounds very familiar)

-a woman's place was in the home while the public spheres of work, the military and the government were the proper domain of men.

- The power of the clergy would be increased because of their reputed influence over women.

-Most women did not really want the vote themselves and that only a minority of bitter, unattractive, frustrated women bothered about it (does this sound familiar?)

-Women were too emotional and unstable because of their biology. They were in many ways inferior to men. (the ever present "biological" arguments. imagine people evoking science for why women shouldn't have a right to vote.. sounds familiar)

-the interests of women were safe in the hands of men and that women could influence men indirectly by persuasion and charm ( familiar patronizing statements? )

- It was held that interference with male authority would undermine the natural order of things. It would undermine the family, the bedrock of society (familiar?)

-It was said that women did not risk their lives in war and might vote against war

-Colonial peoples would not respect an imperial Britain which gave votes to women. (more like "colonial people will also start asking for rights and rebel against imperialism." )

-Proposals to give the vote to women were often considered comical. Women, and especially men, who made them were held up to ridicule (male feminists were ridiculed too ).

[img]http://www.scoilnet.ie/womeninhistory/content/unit5/unkissed.jpg[/img]
"Suffragettes - who have never been kissed"
Postcard. John Hassall, 1912

^ the pictures cameroon has been posting to mock feminists is so similar it's scary

http://www.scoilnet.ie/womeninhistory/content/unit5/activities.html

VERDICT:
There is no difference.

did you know that there are prisoners' rights activists?
ex. besides the horrible condition that they already face(d) prisoners used to be used as science guinea pigs.they will be infected with all kinds of deadly diseases to test new drugs for the general public etc. do prisoners deserve rights? how much rights?
http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights

of course most prisoners rights activists will naturally tend to be people who care about the issues maybe because they were former prisoners or have family members who were/are prisoners. although there will be those who join the cause simply because they learned about what goes on in the system and want to do something to help out.

playmode: I love the way LAGOS has developed but to be honest ,the development is mostly eye candy.These buildings remind me of the term,look but don't touch. Now before you jump on me hear me out.What is the point of having these lovely buildings when the average Nigerian can not afford to live in them?
Some of these building are rented out at the rate of $20,000 per annum and the ones that are for sale go for over N100,000,000
What saddens me is that in foreign countries buildings that look like these ones are easily affordable by the average joe,why is that not so in Nigeria?
In Texas there are acres of land being sold for as little as $300
In Florida you can get premium waterfront plot for as little as $9000
In Michigan you can buy a 4 bedroom house with swimming pool for as little as $35000
Why do we enjoy making ourselves miserable in Nigeria?
Why do we always overprice everything in Nigeria ,are we that greedy and selfish?

Your post makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever. Those buildings are NOT meant for the average Nigerian (at least not yet). They are for professionals or upper middle class families. Even in USA where I live, your average Joe won't be able to afford such condominiums. Maybe in empty, dead city like Detroit, Michigan (it declared bankruptcy less than a week ago!) or depopulated rural areas in Florida or Texas.

Lagos Island is a premium real estate location (what NY or LA is to USA). Not a rural village or dying city. Stop trying to make silly comparisons.

Texas.Cowgirl:
How is he based in the USA?

i'm pretty sure he is. when his divorce was in d news, what I heard was that their family home is in L.A. Heidi is based in US as well and does project runway.

Texas.Cowgirl:
By the way,did his baby daughter paint his nails?

i don't think so. he just always paints his nails. Don't ask me, I dunno why. LOL
maybe he's just being an eccentric weirdo.

Who wants to pick the celebrity for the next round of "Guess the celebrity"?
it doesn't have to be a pic. it could be trivia etc

alright guys...

the owner of the hand is our one and only.... Seal Henry Olusegun Olumide Adeola Samuel

https://ozbeautyexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/seal_yellow_nail_polish_400x300.jpg
https://blog.gonway.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/seal-300x268.jpg

chymystique: @ Op,Do u mean Naija or Hollywood Yeyebrity?

This celebrity is currently based in USA but origin is Nigeria.
I have given you a big hint there.

toshmann: the inimitable gani fawehimmi was a humanist. he believed in human rights and equal rights . . . .
julius nyerere
Socrates

i've given you three names

gani fawehinmi is not a "humaist" (or whatever u call it) he is more of an anti-millitary activist. aka specifically opposed to millitary rule (mostly journalists, authors, media persoalities like musicians etc tend to be the most outspoken about millitary rule because of the censorship involved for them. funny thing is that under a "democracy," censorship can and does still exist for minority or underrepresented groups but these anti-military activist folks don't really care all that much. it is only under dictatorship or millitary rule that a man like gani fawehinmi probably feel what it is like to be persecuted and censored hence why they are actively against dictatorship.. ex the term "all men are created equal" sounds very democratic. in fact it is known as a "human rights" declaration. yet women (and african americans who were seen as sub-human (3/5 human according to US constitution) were excluded from this equality. how much more so under repressive governments?)

My deduction from this is that u are just interested in mainstream politics but calling it "humanist activism"?

Ken Saro wiwa is an an example of a specific political activist for human and environmental rights (ie polluted ogoni land). So, what do you have against his specific focus of activism?
do u equate anti-millitary activism with "humanism"? is that ur definition of "humanism" or what? because as far as I see, it is pretty specific and focused. ex. fawehimi he was against abacha or whoever was ruling nigeria and his main aim is for immediate chage in government due to its repressive and oppressive nature.

Ola Johnson: Wole Soyinka and his beautiful wife, Folakemi Soyinka (nee Doherty).

is that his 4th or 5th domestic appendage wife?

toshmann: see as you called me child . . . i'm not bringing down the eiffel tower in protest . . . if i called you something you didnt like now you'll scream feminism under attack

i'm pretty sure you have called me worse names and I have not screamed "feminism under attack"
if u call me a "child" in a manner that suggests that you intend to attack feminism with it then I will definitely call u out for sure

i believe in human rights . . i believe in the creed that all men(translate all humans) are created equal. that includes men, boys, girls, women, old, young, fetus, rich, poor, etc

I believe in human rights as well.
but be honest with yourself. if all activists were so called "humanist" there will be no human rights in d world. because there will be no focus.
name 3 prominent activists u know who are "humanists" and did not focus on one issue or another whether it be animal rights or racial rights or religious rights or gender rights or gay rights or childrens rights, jewish rights or environmental rights etc.

that's like getting a phd and saying you studied all disciplines. right.

just admit that you are just plain indifferent (a good amount of people are to some extent. otherwise things like the holocaust would have never happened). you sit and let the wind blow you hither and thither. sign a petition here and there and call urself humanist. nothing wrong with that. but no reason for u to criticize those who identify with specific issues. that just makes you anti-humanist.

say NO to child slavery marriage.

Senator Yerima Responds to Critics of Child Marriage

SENATOR AHMED SANI YARIMAN BAKURA REPLIES HIS ENEMIES

''Nigeria has many uncountable problems and none of them is early marriage. As a matter of fact early marriage the solution to about half of our problems. For those who wonder if I can give my daughter(s) out in marriage at the age of 9 or 13, I tell you most honestly, I can give her out at the age of 6 if I want to and its not your business.

This is because I am a Muslim and I follow the example of the best of mankind, Muhammad ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ .

In Islam, marriage is not only about sex, it is about family and helping one another in achieving their goals, which is the attainment of Paradise.

In Islam, a girl can be given out in marriage as early as 6 years old, but consummation of the marriage can only be done when the girl becomes physically mature and she gives her consent to it because unlike English law, it is not permissible for a man To Molest his wife in Shari'ah Law.

So what can anybody tell me?

~ I live in a city where young girls at the age of 12 have already became serial fornicators and cannot count the number of man they've Were Intimate with.

~ I live in a City where primary school children disvirgin themselves behind toilets on Valentine day.

~ I live in a city where young girls flood the street at night looking for men that would give them N500 to Be Intimate with them.

~ I live in a city where parents send their daughters out overseas to prostitute and send dollars down.

~ I live in a City where Government officials pick undergraduates from University car parks with Coastal Buses to wild sex parties.

~ I live in a city where abortion is so common that even a Chemist shop owner can perform abortion with just N2,500.

These are your daughters, and this should worry you and not Yerima's private matters. So ask me again why I support early marriage and I will slap the Jinn out of your head''.

- Senator Ahmad Sani Yarima